Search a substantial collection of case-specific reasoning, then narrow it by petition, field, legal issue, or date.
This expanded collection favors source-backed access over perfect automated classification. Fields, labels, summaries, and relevance may contain errors; records marked ‘broader context’ need extra care. Review the cited source before relying on any record. These appeals and motions do not show approval odds or denial rates, and are not legal advice or a prediction.
10,847 decisions /36,849 findings
Showing 2271–2280
EB-1AEB-1A · MembershipNot established
Case facts
Civil / Structural Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Membership
membership
Why AAO was not persuaded
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that 'responsibility for engineering work of substantial importance' rises to the level of 'outstanding achievements,' nor that admission to ASCE Member grade is judged by recognized national or international experts.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that 'responsibility for engineering work of substantial importance' rises to the level of 'outstanding achievements,' nor that admission to ASCE Member grade is judged by recognized national or international experts.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-12_04_B2203; source_row=41725 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The Petitioner's base salary of $97,500–$105,000 does not exceed the 75th percentile for civil engineers nationally. Non-guaranteed compensation and benefits are not salary. The Petitioner's comparison data was limited to average or mean wages and self-reported sources, which is insufficient to show a high salary relative to others performing similar work in the field.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The Petitioner's base salary of $97,500–$105,000 does not exceed the 75th percentile for civil engineers nationally. Non-guaranteed compensation and benefits are not salary. The Petitioner's comparison data was limited to average or mean wages and self-reported sources, which is insufficient to show a high salary relative to others performing similar work in the field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-12_04_B2203; source_row=41730 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Original contributionsNot established
Case facts
Civil / Structural Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Original contributions
original contributions
Why AAO was not persuaded
The recommendation letters do not contain sufficient detail or explanation of originality, and the record lacks corroborating evidence demonstrating the Petitioner's work has influenced the field beyond his employer and clients. The evidence does not show major significance at the field-wide level.
Why this is useful
Distinguish original work from evidence that the contribution had major significance across the field.
View full reasoning +
The recommendation letters do not contain sufficient detail or explanation of originality, and the record lacks corroborating evidence demonstrating the Petitioner's work has influenced the field beyond his employer and clients. The evidence does not show major significance at the field-wide level.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-12_04_B2203; source_row=41728 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
AAO reversed the Director, finding the Globee article lacked required date and author information and there was no evidence it is a professional or major trade publication. The NewsBreak.com article appeared to be marketing material and the Petitioner failed to show NewsBreak.com qualifies as major media given the limited comparison data provided.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reversed the Director, finding the Globee article lacked required date and author information and there was no evidence it is a professional or major trade publication. The NewsBreak.com article appeared to be marketing material and the Petitioner failed to show NewsBreak.com qualifies as major media given the limited comparison data provided.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-12_04_B2203; source_row=41726 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The newly submitted Technology Plan Supplement does not address how the proposed VR education endeavor has broader implications indicative of national importance—e.g., national/global implications, improved manufacturing or medical advances, or significant potential to employ U.S. workers. General education/technology documents do not identify the Petitioner or her specific endeavor, making them immaterial.…
Why this is useful
Compare how the decision separates a broadly important field from the prospective impact of the applicant’s specific work.
View full reasoning +
The newly submitted Technology Plan Supplement does not address how the proposed VR education endeavor has broader implications indicative of national importance—e.g., national/global implications, improved manufacturing or medical advances, or significant potential to employ U.S. workers. General education/technology documents do not identify the Petitioner or her specific endeavor, making them immaterial. Letters of support contain very little specific information about the proposed endeavor's national importance. Evidence about a prior project the Petitioner participated in does not inform how the prospective endeavor may have national importance.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-12_02_B5203; source_row=41711 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Final meritsReservedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Biomedical / Life Sciences
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Final merits
Final merits determination
What the decision said
AAO reserved the formal final merits determination under Bagamasbad because the step-1 threshold was not met, but noted in dicta that the record in the aggregate did not establish the required acclaim.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO reserved the formal final merits determination under Bagamasbad because the step-1 threshold was not met, but noted in dicta that the record in the aggregate did not establish the required acclaim.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-12_02_B2203; source_row=41710 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Published materialNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Medicine / ClinicalPhysicianPhD
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Published material
published material about the alien
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found the Sina article was effectively anonymous because the credit was ambiguous and there was no information about 'News Express.' Translator certifications were dated nearly a year before the articles' publication and the materials appeared to be machine translations.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
AAO found the Sina article was effectively anonymous because the credit was ambiguous and there was no information about 'News Express.' Translator certifications were dated nearly a year before the articles' publication and the materials appeared to be machine translations.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2024-11-12_03_B2203; source_row=41715 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c